Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Texas Man Shot in Yard Sues nearby Gun Range

  1. #1
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Texas Man Shot in Yard Sues nearby Gun Range

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/03...rby-gun-range/

    Quote Originally Posted by FoxNews
    Michael Domin of Rowlett lives 1.2 miles from the Garland Public Shooting Range. Domin on Thursday sued for damages, alleging a stray .22 caliber bullet struck him June 12 while he was in his yard .
    Last edited by Jack House; 09-05-2010 at 01:10 AM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    http://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Domin+of+Rowlett

    64 articles and a garage sale benefit? Something is fishy.

    Rowlett police determined the bullet was on a downward trajectory, but police spokesman John Ellison says "there is no actual evidence that would support the fact that the bullet was fired from the range."

  3. #3
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    I know a .22 can carry up to a mile, but, from what I read, this guy was 1.2 miles from the range, the police determined that (a) the bullet was on a downward trajectory and (b) it could not be ascertained that the bullet came from the range.
    Some of you who are more up on ballistics than I am tell me something: Would a .22 at that distance, 1.2 miles, even be able to break the skin?

    Something is just not right here. Reading between the lines, it sounds like someone is trying to pressure this range into closing while getting themselves a payday out of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    http://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Domin+of+Rowlett

    64 articles and a garage sale benefit? Something is fishy.
    How so? I don't disagree, I just don't know in what way you mean it is fishy.

    Here is another article. Seems this neighborhood is fairly new, whereas the range was opened in '69. Really sucks for the range.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.3581089.html
    Last edited by Jack House; 09-05-2010 at 02:47 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I know a .22 can carry up to a mile, but, from what I read, this guy was 1.2 miles from the range, the police determined that (a) the bullet was on a downward trajectory and (b) it could not be ascertained that the bullet came from the range.
    Some of you who are more up on ballistics than I am tell me something: Would a .22 at that distance, 1.2 miles, even be able to break the skin?

    Something is just not right here. Reading between the lines, it sounds like someone is trying to pressure this range into closing while getting themselves a payday out of it.
    Sometime back, the Mythbusters busted the myth that bullets shot straight up could kill someone on the way down. The problem was that wind resistance eventually caused the bullet to reach a terminal velocity which, ironically, was not terminal to human beings.

    Now, on the way down, these bullets had the full effect of gravity helping them fall faster, so that terminal velocity would be more than the terminal velocity of a bullet shot at a 45 degree angle (which, theoretically, yields the greatest range). For this reason, after 1.2 miles, I cannot imagine a .22 bullet having sufficient velocity to do much damage at all.

    IANA Ballistic Expert.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    I know a .22 can carry up to a mile, but, from what I read, this guy was 1.2 miles from the range, the police determined that (a) the bullet was on a downward trajectory and (b) it could not be ascertained that the bullet came from the range.
    Some of you who are more up on ballistics than I am tell me something: Would a .22 at that distance, 1.2 miles, even be able to break the skin?

    Something is just not right here. Reading between the lines, it sounds like someone is trying to pressure this range into closing while getting themselves a payday out of it.
    A Remington 36 Grain golden hollow point has a muzzle velocity of 1280 feet per second. The maximum range of this round is 1892.6 yards, fired at an angle of 28 degrees from horizontal.

    Maximum EFFECTIVE range is something else entirely, though.

    Source:
    Sierra Infinity ballistic calculator

    Best estimate (see chart) is that a .22 cal round would be moving about 200 ft/sec at one mile - might sting but unlikely to penetrate unless it hit an eye. Think this incident doesn't fall in the range's area of responsibility.
    http://yarchive.net/gun/maximum_range.html
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    NOWHERE does it specify this was a .22 rim-fire round.

    It may have been a .22 cal bullet that is lethal at 1 mile, of which there are plenty.

    If you read the article, the man was shot in the back, the bullet nicked his pancreas and lodged in his lung.

    It also states he was shot at a downward angle. The lungs are above the pancreas I'm uncertain what position he was in to be shot at a downward angle, but have the bullet travel up his back. He was probably doing yard work or the like.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    229
    This is just typical really. A gun range is close, so when a gun accident / incident happens, of course it's because of the range. There is NO WAY possible it could be someone in their back yard be irresponsible.
    I say this just simply from experience... I'm sitting on the couch watching a show. I hear what I thought was firecrackers, so I decided to look outside. I almost fell to the floor when I saw what I did. The neighbors grandson in the front yard shooting a .22 rifle into the trees at the squirrels. By the time I got over there to jump in his dumbass, I have no idea how many rounds he had already shot, at least 8 - 10 I would guess, shot into the air at 30 degree angles or more. I lost my mind on this kid, he had no idea what damage he could do with his actions.
    So, I would say this was the case in this particular situation.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    NOWHERE does it specify this was a .22 rim-fire round.

    It may have been a .22 cal bullet that is lethal at 1 mile, of which there are plenty.

    If you read the article, the man was shot in the back, the bullet nicked his pancreas and lodged in his lung.

    It also states he was shot at a downward angle. The lungs are above the pancreas I'm uncertain what position he was in to be shot at a downward angle, but have the bullet travel up his back. He was probably doing yard work or the like.
    I agree that the media did not specify the specific caliber, though typically .22 refers to a rim fire. While .222, .223, .224 et cetera are all technically .22 projectiles they are correctly identified by their proper nomenclature - yah, I know it is the media, lacking as it is. Grain weight of the projectiles are different too, allowing for some better ID.

    Did you read what was between his place and the range? Trees - lots of them. There is obviously more to this than what we have read.
    http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/090...#disqus_thread
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 09-05-2010 at 06:55 PM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Yeah, the odds of a .22 traveling 1.2 miles, and not hitting something else along the way are minuscule.

    All else being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. The simplest explanation is that someone a lot closer than 1.2 miles fired the shot.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I agree that the media did not specify the specific caliber, though typically .22 refers to a rim fire. While .222, .223, .224 et cetera are all technically .22 projectiles they are correctly identified by their proper nomenclature - yah, I know it is the media, lacking as it is. Grain weight of the projectiles are different too, allowing for some better ID.

    Did you read what was between his place and the range? Trees - lots of them. There is obviously more to this than what we have read.
    http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/090...#disqus_thread

    I was just thinking the same thing. many people thin k all ".22's" are the same, but while a .223 NATO round may be sometimes referred to as a .22 caliber round, it's far more powerful than someones .22 pea shooter that they take out and plink with.

    At 1.2 miles, the .223 NATO may not be effective against an enemy at this distance in the sense that it can be reliably lethal, but my guess is it could still penetrate and cause injury.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The effective range of an AR-15 firing a .223 is 600 m, 0.6 km, or about 1/3 of a mile. Which rifle and cartridge would have an effective range of 1.2 mi (almost 2 km, almost 2000 m)?

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The effective range of an AR-15 firing a .223 is 600 m, 0.6 km, or about 1/3 of a mile. Which rifle and cartridge would have an effective range of 1.2 mi (almost 2 km, almost 2000 m)?
    Effective range does not equate to maximum dangerous range.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCJxQqkgGf0

    http://www.longrangehunting.com/arti...223-mile-1.php

    http://www.longrangehunting.com/foru...g-video-32846/
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    How so? I don't disagree, I just don't know in what way you mean it is fishy.

    Here is another article. Seems this neighborhood is fairly new, whereas the range was opened in '69. Really sucks for the range.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.3581089.html
    This article reinforces my thought that someone is trying to pressure the range to close and is also looking to get a payday out of it. I noticed that the power company emphatically stated they had no problems from the range.

    Back to my original thought; something just does not compute.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Your links demonstrate the the .223 can put a hold in paper at 1 mile and at 1000 yards (0.57 miles) and will kick up a small cloud of dust at 1 mile.

    Will it put a hole, such as the one described, at 1.2 miles, in a human being? I just don't buy that kind of penetration at 1.2 miles.

    Effective range, besides hitting the target, includes the ability to do damage. Luck may cause the round to hit the guy 1.2 miles away, but I've yet to see anything that would convince me it could do the damage that was done.

    Maybe you could hook up R. Lee Ermy, a watermelon, and an AR-15 on a 1.2 mile range.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Your links demonstrate the the .223 can put a hold in paper at 1 mile and at 1000 yards (0.57 miles) and will kick up a small cloud of dust at 1 mile.

    Will it put a hole, such as the one described, at 1.2 miles, in a human being? I just don't buy that kind of penetration at 1.2 miles.

    Effective range, besides hitting the target, includes the ability to do damage. Luck may cause the round to hit the guy 1.2 miles away, but I've yet to see anything that would convince me it could do the damage that was done.

    Maybe you could hook up R. Lee Ermy, a watermelon, and an AR-15 on a 1.2 mile range.
    About 108 ft-lb at 840fps - Care to stand in front?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    About 108 ft-lb at 840fps - Care to stand in front?
    Are you saying that is the speed at 1.2 miles? 570 mph? At that speed, I would have expected more than the bit of dust we saw kicked up at 1 mile.

    I am not saying you're wrong. I really don't know. I'm just looking for something concrete.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    The speed at which a projectile must travel to penetrate skin is 163 fps and to break bone is 213 fps, both of which are quite low, so other factors are more important in producing damage. (Belkin, 1978)
    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/...S/GUNBLST.html

    To calculate foot-pounds of energy (fpe) for a given load when you know bullet weight and velocity, use the following formula:

    FPE=(Velocity x Velocity) x Bullet Weight / 450400

    Rough calculation:
    1,000 ft / sec * 60 sec / min * 60 min / hr = 3,600,000 ft / hr3,600,000 ft / hr * 1 mile / 5280 ft = 681.81 mph

    Note my initial estimate may not have been exact - too tired to recompute it, but I'll not volunteer to stand down range.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    The speed at which a projectile must travel to penetrate skin is 163 fps and to break bone is 213 fps, both of which are quite low, so other factors are more important in producing damage. (Belkin, 1978)
    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/...S/GUNBLST.html

    To calculate foot-pounds of energy (fpe) for a given load when you know bullet weight and velocity, use the following formula:

    FPE=(Velocity x Velocity) x Bullet Weight / 450400

    Rough calculation:
    1,000 ft / sec * 60 sec / min * 60 min / hr = 3,600,000 ft / hr3,600,000 ft / hr * 1 mile / 5280 ft = 681.81 mph

    Note my initial estimate may not have been exact - too tired to recompute it, but I'll not volunteer to stand down range.
    Are you saying that one of those (570 mph or 680 mph) is the speed of a .223 round fired from an AR-15 after it has traveled 1.2 miles?

    Considering the damage described, speeds in excess of those you said would break skin and bone would be necessary. BTW, the speeds of 163 fps and 213 fps (roughly 110 mph and 145 mph) are far less than the speed of falling bullets on Mythbusters, where the falling bullets were not considered lethal.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,603
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Are you saying that one of those (570 mph or 680 mph) is the speed of a .223 round fired from an AR-15 after it has traveled 1.2 miles?

    Considering the damage described, speeds in excess of those you said would break skin and bone would be necessary. BTW, the speeds of 163 fps and 213 fps (roughly 110 mph and 145 mph) are far less than the speed of falling bullets on Mythbusters, where the falling bullets were not considered lethal.
    I am not the ballistic expert; rather relying on the input of others and then trying to decipher their numbers.

    Don't know what credence I would give to Mythbusters or not - kind of like Hollywood or the $20,000 Question - what to believe on TV or at the movies.

    The bottom line for me is that I'm not standing in front of any of them on purpose.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The effective range of an AR-15 firing a .223 is 600 m, 0.6 km, or about 1/3 of a mile. Which rifle and cartridge would have an effective range of 1.2 mi (almost 2 km, almost 2000 m)?
    The Mossin-Nagant 1891/30 has iron sights up to 2km, so I'm going to assume the 91/30 has the *capabilities* of putting a bullet that far downrange.

    As to whether it is effective, thats a whole other can of worms that I'm not jumping into
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  22. #22
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Sometime back, the Mythbusters busted the myth that bullets shot straight up could kill someone on the way down. The problem was that wind resistance eventually caused the bullet to reach a terminal velocity which, ironically, was not terminal to human beings.

    Now, on the way down, these bullets had the full effect of gravity helping them fall faster, so that terminal velocity would be more than the terminal velocity of a bullet shot at a 45 degree angle (which, theoretically, yields the greatest range). For this reason, after 1.2 miles, I cannot imagine a .22 bullet having sufficient velocity to do much damage at all.

    IANA Ballistic Expert.
    i remember that show. IIRC they used a Garand and a Beretta 92.

    i thought i heard it the other way around on the show. that the round fired straight up would not have enough gusto on the way down to do terminal damage. wasn't the 9mm found just inches below the surface of the desert? i don't remember how the 30.06 fared.

    but, and only IIRC again, i thought they were told by a ballistics expert that if a round was fired up at an angle that it would achieve terminal velocity on the way down because it never stopped in flight and lost all of its momentum like the "straight up" round did. they couldn't test this since there would be now way to actually find the spent round.

    maybe i heard the show wrong, maybe i didn't. but it was one that i just quickly checked out as i was trying to get to sleep one night.


    just my 2 cents.
    Last edited by Broondog; 09-06-2010 at 12:48 AM.
    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  23. #23
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Broondog View Post
    i remember that show. IIRC they used a Garand and a Beretta 92.

    i thought i heard it the other way around on the show. that the round fired straight up would not have enough gusto on the way down to do terminal damage. wasn't the 9mm found just inches below the surface of the desert? i don't remember how the 30.06 fared.

    but, and only IIRC again, i thought they were told by a ballistics expert that if a round was fired up at an angle that it would achieve terminal velocity on the way down because it never stopped in flight and lost all of its momentum like the "straight up" round did. they couldn't test this since there would be now way to actually find the spent round.

    maybe i heard the show wrong, maybe i didn't. but it was one that i just quickly checked out as i was trying to get to sleep one night.


    just my 2 cents.
    Your correct. They had a difficult time getting the bullet to 'fall' straight down(spin provides no stabilization). Even a slight breeze, or the gun being slightly off perfectly vertical, will cause the bullet to tip over into an arc, maintaining spin stabilization on it's downward path.

    In real life it would be very difficult to safely fire a bullet straight up, and attempting so can only be considered negligent if your in a populated(even lightly) area.
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 09-06-2010 at 08:30 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  24. #24
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I agree that the media did not specify the specific caliber, though typically .22 refers to a rim fire. While .222, .223, .224 et cetera are all technically .22 projectiles they are correctly identified by their proper nomenclature - yah, I know it is the media, lacking as it is. Grain weight of the projectiles are different too, allowing for some better ID.

    Did you read what was between his place and the range? Trees - lots of them. There is obviously more to this than what we have read.
    http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/090...#disqus_thread
    The trees. Hitting even a few tiny twigs would destabilize and tumble any .22 cal, making it bleed off energy super fast. If you were shooting a .223 through a medium that would cause it to destablize in flight, I might be willing to stand at 1.2mi. (I agree no way I'd do it for an unobstructed flight path)
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 09-06-2010 at 08:40 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  25. #25
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yeah, the odds of a .22 traveling 1.2 miles, and not hitting something else along the way are minuscule.

    All else being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. The simplest explanation is that someone a lot closer than 1.2 miles fired the shot.
    I'd have to agree with this. This seems like the most logical explanation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •